Historian Timothy Snyder wrote “If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power because there is no basis upon which to do so.” Consequently, when societies “abandon facts,” they also “abandon freedom.” Yet to simply paper over the growing problems of “fake news” and polarizing media with philosophical precepts would be a gross injustice to the function of government. Take the small, landlocked South Asian state of Nepal, where journalists and civil rights activists are up in arms after the government publicized the draft of a new “draconian” media bill that threatens to erase the remaining slivers of press freedom in the country. In late May, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) also issued a strongly-worded riposte to Kathmandu accusing it of “throttling” the civic space for free speech. The so-called Media Council Bill (MCB)has alarm bells ringing in local press circles for two broad reasons. First, it will replace the longstanding and independent Press Council of Nepal with a new “media council” comprising members nominated by and answerable to the government. This will give Kathmandu de-facto control over the definition of “truth” and “free speech” in the country. Next, the government will significantly expand the circle of punishment for disinformation and defamation by media outlets to include their editors and owners. Those found guilty face up to USD 9,000 in fines. The Nepal Communist Party (NCP) government presently commands the two-thirds majority needed to pass the bill. Despite international outrage over the proposed law, spokespersons for Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli are adamant the MCB is necessary to “deal with fake news and improve the media environment.” The clash between “freedom of speech” and the “greater good” is an age-old debate, a question of “who watches the watchmen?” On the flipside, the Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ) and international media rights group, Reporters without Borders (RSF), counter the government is disingenuously reducing the present standoff to a mere legal issue. The real harm from the MCB, they say, comes from its signalling effect to the media industry and society at large. It vastly shrinks the space for civil discourse and forces an already embattled journalistic community to even greater self-censorship. Both outcomes are devastating for democracy in Nepal and analogous to an Orwellian “ministry of truth.” Nepal currently ranks 106th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2019 World Press Freedom Index. Zooming out, there are global forces at play shaping the events in Nepal. Populism is resurging with a vengeance, with none more vivid an example than Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent re-election win riding the wave of Hindu religio-nationalism. And across Europe and South America, popular dissatisfaction with center-right politicians that mismanaged the 2008 financial crisis and the 2015 migrant crisis has given new life to once fringe right-wing movements and political “strongmen” on pledges of reversing immigration and multiculturalism. The cherry on top, of course, is the self-styled “leader of the free world” Donald Trump, an American president who increasingly panders to the most bigoted and racist voters in his country. Some regional commentators opine the MCB is a direct consequence of China’s growing footprint in Nepal, most notably the mega-projects planned as part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).The NCP, hence, is moving toward a China-style relationship with the media where the latter are little more than propaganda mouthpieces of the state. Kathmandu also has Asian antecedents to support its case. Singapore, marvelled as the “Switzerland of the East” and practically a one-party state, in April passed the “Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill,” a piece of legislation that strongly echoes the MCB and may indeed have inspired it. The clash between “freedom of speech” and the “greater good” is an age-old debate, a question of “who watches the watchmen?” In one corner, there are those that champion the “truth” as objective and above any king or country. Accordingly, they believe the “fourth estate” is the last line of defense against autocracy that silences contrary voices and marginalizes minorities. While we cannot deny the outsized role media plays in safeguarding free societies, the core duty of any national leadership is to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens. And governments the world over are awakening to the reality that the media, and especially online media, have done a poor job of gate keeping their sacred “truth.” The laundry list of hacking and disinformation scandals plaguing social media giants Facebook, Twitter and Instagram that most modern news outlets employ to broadcast content have spot-lit concerns over their abuse. These platforms display an immense capacity to adversely influence public opinion, as was the focus of the recently concluded Russia-Trump probe in the US. They can also incite violence along ethno-religious lines as in India and Myanmar, thus mandating rigorous oversight by the government. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted as much in recent congressional hearings. Nevertheless, muzzling the press rarely diminishes people’s appetite for real news in the age of social media and smartphones, and autocrats attempting to curb fair comment soon realize that public discourse has shifted to alternative, harder-to-control channels of communication such as encrypted group messaging on WhatsApp and Telegram. Indeed, the biggest losers from MCB-style legislation are often traditional media outlets that are the easiest to win over for regimes. Oli’s government has probably done the math, and will at some point hold out an olive branch to media owners and civil rights watchdogs to reshape the MCB in a manner more acceptable to stakeholders. The end product won’t be perfect, but national security laws rarely are. The writer is an Ipoh-based independent journalist